In Reference To CyBs Statement of Faith - Christian Forum

[BjornFree]

Hi Oz,
I ought not to have made my post personal to you.
For which reason I did not use the forum's standard 'quote' facility......but then I spoiled it all by adding parenthesise around the bit that I extracted mainly from your prior post.
So, I apologise for that and, in the knowledge that many such people do post to forums along the lines which I described, I rephrase my post as follows:

What a tragedy when those who regard believers whose faith does not accord with their own as being heretics, and infiltrators, who come into the church, bringing postmodern, multicultural, metaphorical, metaphysical worldview and baggage with them, and sometimes even go so far as to expect a forum to ban such people.
Insular bigotry barely describes such an attitude.
Many such believers are hooked on creeds such as that of the Council of Nicaea, which originated at Constantine's instigation, and was introduced because of his fear of uncontrollable insurgence if the growth of Christianity were allowed to continue without 'definition'. All of the many divergent Christian beliefs that Constantine felt the need to rationalise were addressed by the resultant Creed.
The Council of Nicaea was instigated centuries after Christ, after the end of the apostolic era and, being comprised of secular as well as religious dignitaries, does not carry much weight with me.
The spirit of Constantine still lives on in Christianity today.

 

[BjornFree]

I have to agree in that aspect. Everyone has a personal Creed and it may not be something that has been vocalized but it still exists in their psyche. I do prefer however to have a modern-day statement of faith and not lean back on Old creeds that were not representative, even in there day, of the majority of believers. I think it would be great to have a modern 21st century Creed or statement of faith that could and would represent the majority of Christian belief. The fact that so many denominations exist today makes me very pessimistic that this can be accomplished, but it doesn't hurt for CB to try.

If Creeds are so important, and a 'Creed' should take the form of a "modern-day statement of faith" (presumably the faith of each poster) then why don't we each take a stab at what would be our personal modern-day statement of faith?
How's about a separate thread for that purpose?.....could be fun and enlightening.

 

[lforrest]

If Creeds are so important, and a 'Creed' should take the form of a "modern-day statement of faith" (presumably the faith of each poster) then why don't we each take a stab at what would be our personal modern-day statement of faith?
How's about a separate thread for that purpose?.....could be fun and enlightening.

There is a spot for that in everyone's profile.

 

[BjornFree]

There is a spot for that in everyone's profile.

Yeah, but from the responses that I get to many of my posts I might just as well not have bothered,
Very few members fill their boots in 'profile', and don't bother to refer to those who do.

 

[tom55]

What a tragedy to witness those who regard believers whose faith does not accord with their own as being heretics, and infiltrators, who "come into the church, bringing their postmodern, multicultural, metaphorical, metaphysical worldview and baggage with them", and often demand that they should be banned from forums.
Insular bigotry barely describes such an attitude.
The Nicene creed was at Constantine's instigation, centuries after Christ, and was introduced because of the fear of uncontrollable insurgence if the growth of Christianity were allowed to continue without 'definition'. Issues with the Arians who were non-Trinitarians was but a small representative example of the Christian divergence that Constantine needed to minimise.
The spirit of Constantine lives on.

It seems YOU are saying that Constantine was trying to minimize Arianism....unless I am not reading your statement correctly?

Constantine actually supported Arianism (Arius). The Council of Nicaea condemned or rejected Arius's doctrine (Arianism) which in effect they rejected Constantine. He wasn't trying to minimize the Arians, he was trying to uphold or support the belief.

 

[OzSpen]

Hi Oz,
I ought not to have made my post personal to you.
For which reason I did not use the forum's standard 'quote' facility......but then I spoiled it all by adding parenthesise around the bit that I extracted mainly from your prior post.
So, I apologise for that and, in the knowledge that many such people do post to forums along the lines which I described, I rephrase my post as follows:

What a tragedy when those who regard believers whose faith does not accord with their own as being heretics, and infiltrators, who come into the church, bringing postmodern, multicultural, metaphorical, metaphysical worldview and baggage with them, and sometimes even go so far as to expect a forum to ban such people.
Insular bigotry barely describes such an attitude.
Many such believers are hooked on creeds such as that of the Council of Nicaea, which originated at Constantine's instigation, and was introduced because of his fear of uncontrollable insurgence if the growth of Christianity were allowed to continue without 'definition'. All of the many divergent Christian beliefs that Constantine felt the need to rationalise were addressed by the resultant Creed.
The Council of Nicaea was instigated centuries after Christ, after the end of the apostolic era and, being comprised of secular as well as religious dignitaries, does not carry much weight with me.
The spirit of Constantine still lives on in Christianity today.

Oneoff,

"What a tragedy when those who regard believers whose faith does not accord with their own as being heretics". From where do you gain the labelling of 'heretics'? From your own creed?

It matters not who called a certain Council. However, the one at Nicea involved bishops of the church and its main purpost was to settle a christological issue concerning the relationship of the Son of God with the Father. Teaching on this relationship had been subverted by the false teaching of Arius (an ancient version of the JWs).

I'm indeed grateful that these Christians weighed the biblical issues regarding the Trinity and came up with a summary of the Christian position that was articulated in the Nicene Creed.

You say that the Nicene Creed 'does not carry much weight with me'. Does that mean your Christian life is determined by another non-Trinitarian or Trinitarian Creed that you have not yet articulated on this forum.

The Nicene Creed




We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.
And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
He spoke through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and to life in the world to come. Amen.

We grant permission to download for personal use, a ministry setting, or classroom use provided that: no more than 100 copies are made; the material is distributed for free; and the copies include this credit line: © 1987, CRC Publications, Grand Rapids MI. www.crcna.org. Reprinted with permission.

What is unorthodox about any statement in this Creed? We need to understand the meaning of 'one holy catholic and apostolic church' as it applied in the 4th century. 'One baptism for the forgiveness of sins' is another statement that has come under criticism.

However, as an overall statement, it summarises some of the fundamentals of the faith.

Oz

 

[BjornFree]

Oneoff,

"What a tragedy when those who regard believers whose faith does not accord with their own as being heretics". From where do you gain the labelling of 'heretics'? From your own creed?

Oz

From general responses on various forums to my particular faith.

 

[OzSpen]

It seems YOU are saying that Constantine was trying to minimize Arianism....unless I am not reading your statement correctly?

Constantine actually supported Arianism (Arius). The Council of Nicaea condemned or rejected Arius's doctrine (Arianism) which in effect they rejected Constantine. He wasn't trying to minimize the Arians, he was trying to uphold or support the belief.

Tom,

Well said.

There is an excellent, but brief, article in Christian History, 'How Arianism Almost Won', that is a helpful overview of some of the issues surrounding the Council of Nicea, Constantine, etc.

Oz

 

[BjornFree]

Oneoff,

"What a tragedy when those who regard believers whose faith does not accord with their own as being heretics". From where do you gain the labelling of 'heretics'? From your own creed?

It matters not who called a certain Council. However, the one at Nicea involved bishops of the church and its main purpost was to settle a christological issue concerning the relationship of the Son of God with the Father. Teaching on this relationship had been subverted by the false teaching of Arius (an ancient version of the JWs).

I'm indeed grateful that these Christians weighed the biblical issues regarding the Trinity and came up with a summary of the Christian position that was articulated in the Nicene Creed.

You say that the Nicene Creed 'does not carry much weight with me'. Does that mean your Christian life is determined by another non-Trinitarian or Trinitarian Creed that you have not yet articulated on this forum.

What is unorthodox about any statement in this Creed? We need to understand the meaning of 'one holy catholic and apostolic church' as it applied in the 4th century. 'One baptism for the forgiveness of sins' is another statement that has come under criticism.

However, as an overall statement, it summarises some of the fundamentals of the faith.

Oz

I'm trying to be as 'open' as I can about my faith and have expanded my personal SoF in my profile accordingly.
There might well be theological doctrines that I don't touch upon, but I think I've said more than enough for members to know all that they need in order to get a fair picture of where I'm coming from.

 

[OzSpen]

From general responses on various forums to my particular faith.

So you do have a doctrine of how to label people with heretical views? How do you know your definition of 'heretic' is correct? If you obtained it from 'various forums', what makes those views correct?

 

[StanJ]

If Creeds are so important, and a 'Creed' should take the form of a "modern-day statement of faith" (presumably the faith of each poster) then why don't we each take a stab at what would be our personal modern-day statement of faith?
How's about a separate thread for that purpose?.....could be fun and enlightening.

Notice I said I prefer, which does not necessarily make it important to have a Creed. I also prefer the term statement of faith / Creed as I find Creed brings up too many negative connotations of the early church Creed's that may have been as accurate as it could possibly be then butt in the light of today's knowledge of scripture can have severe shortcomings. Seems this thread is as good a place as any to voice our opinions in that regard.
There was another thread that I think Angelina started about our common agreements on the faith, but I can't remember where it is.

 

[BjornFree]

Tom,

Well said.

There is an excellent, but brief, article in Christian History, 'How Arianism Almost Won', that is a helpful overview of some of the issues surrounding the Council of Nicea, Constantine, etc.

Oz

"Well said" meaning he agrees with you.
My word you are sooooo 'closed-shop' to all but your own belief.
Surely this is a forum that offers just a little bit of credibility to the vast range of theological conviction that pertains to Christianity.
If not I'm 'off'.

 

[OzSpen]

I'm trying to be as 'open' as I can about my faith and have expanded my personal SoF in my profile accordingly.
There might well be theological doctrines that I don't touch upon, but I think I've said more than enough for members to know all that they need in order to get a fair picture of where I'm coming from.

I've read your personal statement of faith that includes some idiosyncratic doctrines that would make interesting discussion in other threads. Take this SoF from your profile:

I believe that 'scripture' was inspired to a degree of which we cannot be certain, but I stop short of the extreme of 'absolute' verbal inerrancy. I also reject the view that 'canonisation', centuries after 'Christ', was a faultless operation. For me 'The Word of God' is that which God "writes on the fleshy table of my heart", using media of which scripture is a vital part, but not the only part (I am not an advocate of 'sola scriptura').

Since these are your personal views, I could imagine that many orthodox Christian communities would not find these views acceptable. So, do you accept the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter, and the Gospel of the Hebrews to be part of the NT canon of Scripture?

Which current books of the NT should be out and rejected by you as part of the NT?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

"Well said" meaning he agrees with you.
My word you are sooooo 'closed-shop' to all but your own belief.
Surely this is a forum that offers just a little bit of credibility to the vast range of theological conviction that pertains to Christianity.
If not I'm 'off'.

So you are in a huff already? And you can't tolerate someone like myself who accepts truth about Constantine and his support of Arius.

Oz

 

[BjornFree]

Surely the honest approach of folk who are so set on 'Reformation' must be to aim for at least "the faith first delivered to the saints" in the apostolic era of the first century AD.
Why not embrace the Didache?
It well precedes the Nicaea definition of theology, and the Carthage canonisation of apostolic writings.

 

[BjornFree]

So you are in a huff already? And you can't tolerate someone like myself who accepts truth about Constantine and his support of Arius.

Oz

What I struggle to tolerate is the view that "everyone who believes differently is wrong".
For my part I'm even prepared to accept that you might (very heavy emphasis) be right.

 

[BjornFree]

Which current books of the NT should be out and rejected by you as part of the NT?

Oz

My faith is based on what God implants into the "fleshy tablets of my heart", and the media which he uses is not limited to the 'bible'.
Hymns, for example are often used by God accordingly.
Mine is a Spirit led 'Faith'.....yours is a Text Book led 'Religion'.
As Paul said of the Galatians "who has bewitched you?"

 

[BjornFree]

So you do have a doctrine of how to label people with heretical views? How do you know your definition of 'heretic' is correct? If you obtained it from 'various forums', what makes those views correct?

Aw shucks.....for goodness sake let's call it a wrap and stop trying to be the 'victor'.

 

[OzSpen]

Surely the honest approach of folk who are so set on 'Reformation' must be to aim for at least "the faith first delivered to the saints" in the apostolic era of the first century AD.
Why not embrace the Didache?
It well precedes the Nicaea definition of theology, and the Carthage canonisation of apostolic writings.

The Didache provides valuable insight into early church teaching, but it is not a formulated creed such as The Apostles' Creed, The Athanasian Creed and the Nicene Creed.

In fact, the NT documents precede The Didache, so in the NT I find more valuable information than The Didache for formulating a statement of faith.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Aw shucks.....for goodness sake let's call it a wrap and stop trying to be the 'victor'.

That's a red herring fallacy. Now answer my question: 'So you do have a doctrine of how to label people with heretical views?'